| I wonder if the title is intentional. The "great leap forward" was a failed economic and social policy where the communists decided to fast forward development by skipping directly to industrialization. It didn't quite work and tens of millions of people died of famine as a result. What the article actually says, is that China is investing a lot in basic science. What is true is that while the quality of research per researcher in China is not that high, the sheer investment and focus coupled with quantity has led to a lot of scientific progress. My father is part of that thousand research program to lure specialists back to China. Having seen how he works in China compared to Australia, what the real advantage China has for researchers is that they give virtual free reign and all the resources needed (read: $$$, labs and all the grad students you want) to conduct research. For those who've never worked in academia, even though there is more academic freedom outside of China, there are whole loads of red tape (mostly well-intentioned) that slow things down. For example, at Princeton, any social science experiment involving people requires a panel to approve the ethics. A similar experiment in a Chinese university does not have the same requirements. Even if they did on paper, it would not be as rigorous. The same goes for expenditures. I remember my father complaining years ago about how for an Australian research project, spending research money on a special type of computer required additional approval even though the money for research was already granted. That's not the case in China. The net effect is that shockingly enough, the Chinese have managed to create almost a startup-like sandbox environment for researchers. In fields, particularly biotech, where there are ethical, and other red-tape considerations, the Chinese have an edge in producing results faster. Of course, this just means to get one cloned monkey, hundreds of independent teams mostly likely inhumanely murdered many multiples of monkeys to get to this result. What is important is to realize that for the Chinese, this sort of Stanlinist "only the results matter" approach is perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged. Most people would balk at the ethical and human cost, I know I do, but there is no doubt that it provides an advantage to Chinese scientists over those in the developed world. Multiply in the sheer number of Chinese scientists and you have results. Progress at any cost. |
See for example Nature: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/experimental.html